Innovation in the digital economy through the lens of the NRI
This section begins with an overview of the networked readiness framework and then considers two key mechanisms by which digital technologies are affecting innovation: the first mechanism is changing the nature of innovation, whereas the second is driving a new urgency to innovate. Next, four key findings that emerge from the analysis of historical and this year’s NRI data are presented.
The networked readiness framework
Launched by the World Economic Forum in 2001 and significantly extended in 2012, the NRI can help to assess countries’ ability to capitalize on the digital revolution and their preparedness to benefit from the emerging Fourth Industrial Revolution. This chapter uses the NRI to point out some striking patterns in countries’ innovation performance. The Index aggregates data from 53 indicators, organized on the basis of the networked readiness framework (Figure 1). Networked readiness rests on whether a country possesses the drivers necessary for digital technologies to unleash their potential, and on whether these technologies are actually impacting the economy and society.
The drivers are grouped within four subindexes as follows:
A. Environment subindex
- Political and regulatory environment (9 indicators)
- Business and innovation environment (9 indicators)
B. Readiness subindex
- Infrastructure (4 indicators)
- Affordability (3 indicators)
- Skills (4 indicators)
C. Usage subindex
- Individual usage (7 indicators)
- Business usage (6 indicators)
- Government usage (3 indicators)
Impact is measured as a separate subindex:
D. Impact subindex
- Economic impacts (4 indicators)
- Social impacts (4 indicators)
About half of the 53 individual indicators used in the NRI are sourced from international organizations. The main providers are the International Telecommunication Union (ITU); the World Bank; the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); and other UN agencies. Carefully chosen alternative data sources, including national sources, are used to fill data gaps in certain cases. The other half of the NRI indicators are derived from the World Economic Forum’s annual Executive Opinion Survey (the Survey). The Survey is used to measure concepts that are qualitative in nature or for which internationally comparable statistics are not available for enough countries.3
The 2016 iteration of the Index covers 139 economies, accounting for 98.1 percent of world GDP. Angola, Barbados, Burkina Faso, Libya, Suriname, Timor-Leste, and Yemen—all covered in the 2015 edition—have been excluded, in line with the country coverage of The Global Competitiveness Report 2015–2016. Sierra Leone was also excluded, even though Survey data do exist for that country, because too many data points were missing for other indicators. Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ecuador, and Liberia have been reinstated this year. The appendix provides a detailed description of the networked readiness framework and its rationale, together with a complete methodological note on the computation of the NRI.
How digital technology affects the nature and urgency of innovation: Two mechanisms
This section shines a spotlight on the innovation mechanisms brought into play by digital technologies and subsequently shows consistent emerging patterns in the NRI data.
The joint EU/OECD Oslo Manual defines innovation as follows:4
An innovation is the implementation of a new or significantly improved product (good or service), a new process, a new marketing method, or a new organizational method in business practices, workplace organization, or external relations.
Digital technologies are changing innovation itself in a qualitative way as well as amplifying the urgency to innovate. Identified below are a direct mechanism, which is changing the nature of innovation, and an indirect effect, which drives a new urgency to innovate; the latter applies to tech and non-tech firms alike.
The direct way in which digital technology affects innovation is via an augmentation of existing tools, products, processes, and business models by embedding new technologies. This mechanism applies along the entire value chain from design to marketing. In addition to allowing firms to achieve marginal productivity improvements (e.g., by digitizing existing products or providing new ways of organizing the production system), digital technologies are importantly changing the nature of innovation itself. The large wave of rapid and accelerating web-driven innovation can be explained by a type of almost costless combinatorial innovation. It relies on the fact that parts that are being combined into new products are bits (protocols and languages) rather than physical parts and components and thus have no time-to-manufacture, no inventory issues, no delivery problems, and can be shipped around the world instantaneously.5
In particular, digital technologies are affecting innovation directly in the following ways:
- R&D and basic research: New technologies augment tools used in research and decrease costs of previously unaffordable research activities. They allow more accurate inference based on larger amounts of data and enable more extensive long-distance research collaboration, including crowd-sourcing.
- Product and process innovation: Digital technology makes possible new products and services, and re-engineering production systems give cost and quality advantages. Chapter 1.2 in this Report provides extensive case study evidence for a wide range of industries to illustrate this point.6
- Business model innovation: Digital technologies are allowing firms to entirely reimagine current business models within the emerging network of people and machines, giving price and quality-of-service advantages over incumbents. Key for businesses are the new opportunities this brings for ways of matching people to needs and of leveraging the network for decentralized information gathering to create systems that are constantly re-optimizing themselves. Thus, in addition to allowing for more efficient directed/explicit learning systems in the form of crowd-sourcing models for innovation, the new level of connectivity that characterizes the emerging industrial landscape is also creating increasingly self-learning systems. Some of the biggest success stories of the digital era have been companies that have moved into the business of market-making. The gains to be had from this approach to leveraging technology are currently looking bigger than the gains to be had from incremental product and process improvements for existing products.
In an indirect way, digital technology is leading to more innovation by changing the incentives of incumbents to innovate. This is competition-driven innovation, where innovation itself does not necessarily involve new technologies. In particular, this includes technology having the effect of:
- Increasing market size: Technology acts to integrate markets by reducing communication costs and increasing matching efficiency, which in turn increases competitive pressures. For example, online platforms through which firms can connect almost without cost to a global consumer base are creating a tougher competitive environment.
- Reducing barriers to entry: New online services, such as globally accessible cloud computing and online marketing platforms, are saving start-ups and small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) a significant share of the fixed costs of running a business. This facilitates entry and scaling, and thereby contributes to a leveling of the playing field vis-à-vis large incumbents. Mettler and Williams (2011) identify six such types of business platforms: crowd-financing, digital utilities, professional services marketplaces, micro-manufacturing, innovation marketplaces, and e-commerce platforms.7
- Acquiring and leveraging knowledge of consumer preferences: Big data is giving firms the opportunity to target products so they more closely align with consumer preferences based on more accurate information about the latter. This can act like a quality upgrade from the point of view of the consumer, and therefore increases pressure on other firms to innovate themselves.
In addition to increasing competitive pressures from new forms of innovation, the central position of networks in this emerging industrial landscape is dramatically changing the rules of the game for companies across sectors: a key implication for businesses is that the ability to scale fast is starting to become a precondition for innovation success.
Why is innovation alone no longer enough? Across industries, achieving scale quickly (in terms of customer base) is crucial because of the self-reinforcing nature of network effects and the implied winner-take-all outcome for the player that achieves a large enough network the fastest.8 Scale is also important for self-optimization of systems: the more participants, the faster the system updates priors about the behavior of market participants, allowing for ever closer matches of preferences and creating yet more value. Quick scaling is also allowing companies to set industry standards, which can act as a competitive advantage because the company that scales quickly sets the precedent and thus can define that precedent. Businesses therefore need to substantially accelerate all processes across the firm in order to win the race for the market.
The ability to scale cannot be taken for granted in the digital economy. An ecosystem that systematically allows top innovations to be scaled globally remains a key feature of only a handful of places, including Silicon Valley.9
Technology-enabled innovation is thus creating significant competitive pressures for tech and non-tech firms alike. In competitive economies, the only way to escape is yet more innovation. These mechanisms look set to be reinforced as the Fourth Industrial Revolution is starting to gain a foothold.
This section presents the four key findings that emerge from an analysis of the last five years of NRI data.
1. The changing nature of innovation: The minds of business executives around the world are increasingly focused on innovation as reflected by the steady upward trend in firms’ perceived capacity to innovate. Traditional measures for innovation, such as the number of patents registered, are telling only part of the story. This is related to the fact that the current transformation is nurtured by a different type of innovation, increasingly based on digital technologies and on the new business models it allows: executives in almost 100 countries report increases in the perceived impact of ICTs on business-model innovation compared with last year.
The World Economic Forum’s Executive Opinion Survey annually asks more than 14,000 business executives in more than 140 economies about their perception of the capacity to innovate by firms in their country. The data of the last five years show some striking global patterns. Business executives across all regions of the world state that the capacity to innovate of firms in their countries has increased steadily (Figure 2). With this clear global shift in focus toward innovation by the business sector, three questions arise: Is the increased innovation capacity being realized and reflected in terms of innovation output? If it is, what kinds of innovation are firms engaging in? What is driving this favorable shift in innovation capacity?
Consider the most traditional of innovation output measures: the number of patents normalized by population size. Patenting activity continues on an upward trend in advanced economies and is starting to pick up across most regions of the world. It has been growing in particular in Emerging Europe as well as in the Middle East and North Africa. Figure 2 illustrates these positive trends (with a change in patenting compared to the 2012 base on the right-hand scale). Nevertheless, much of the increased innovation capacity remains unaccounted for once innovation output in the form of patents is taken into account. Several explanations are possible for this observation.
For technologically advanced countries, patent trends are more closely matched to perceived innovation trends, yet in some sectors there is a divergence between the two. Patenting is slowing, particularly in industries with high digital content, at the same time that innovation is accelerating (see Box 3). Several reasons for this slowdown are put forward in Box 3: one driver is the shortening of product cycles, which is especially evident in industries, such as audio-visual technologies and telecommunications, that are most affected by digital disruption. In addition, patent pendency times have been rising. These two developments combined often make it unprofitable for firms to patent their innovations. In addition, the pressure to innovate has increased to such an extent that many firms are focusing their resources entirely on cost-saving/efficiency innovation rather than attempting moonshots, or what Clayton Christensen calls “empowering innovation.”10 Thus, although digital innovation is accelerating, the expectation is that these trends will be captured less and less well by traditional innovation measures in the future.
Box 3: The decline of patents in ICT-driven industries
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) (2015) shows a global rise of patent applications to a total of 2.7 million, an increase of 4.5 percent over 2014.3-1 Yet two patent fields—audio-visual technologies and telecommunications—show a constant decline in their number of patent applications over the last 10 years, of 13 percent and 20 percent, respectively. Moreover, since peaking in 2005, the total number of patent filings of the top 100 global patent applicants has followed a downward trend of more than 20 percent in the last decade. This has resulted in part from a sharp decline in filings by three large companies, which have reduced their patent activities by more than two-thirds. Those three and the remaining companies in the top 100 are predominantly in the computer, semiconductor, telecommunications, and consumer electronic business. Three potential drivers of this trend are shortening product life cycles, longer patent pendency times, and a shift in innovation types:
Product life cycles are getting shorter
Various studies have shown that the duration of product life cycles is steadily decreasing across all industries. Between 1997 and 2012 the average life cycle length across industries fell by 24 percent.3-2 The digitalization of almost every business aspect and the resulting efficiency boosts have contributed a big part of this development.
Besides a general shortening of product life cycles, the existence of differences across various industry sectors are especially important with respect to their development cycle times and useful product life spans.3-3 For fast, risky industries even small delays in time-to-market can have extensive effects on the expected return. Being late to market yields a significant loss of revenue; this can quickly exceed the costs incurred during the development and manufacturing phase.
Imagine a semiconductor company that produces a chip with two years of product life on the market. Releasing a new chip only one quarter (three months) too late means the company loses more than one-third of the expected return of releasing on time. This could potentially exceed the development costs of the product and be a very sensitive profit killer. Compare this to the world’s largest passenger airplane, the Airbus A380, which has a useful product life of around 20 years. Delays in the delivery of commercial airplanes are rather the rule than the exception, and the incurred cost of mistakes are easier to amortize.
Patent pendency time is getting longer
The average patent pendency time has increased in many patent offices around the world to four years and more. This trend, together with the simultaneous shortening of product life cycles across all industries, could have led to a situation where filing patents increasingly become an unpractical and tardy means for technological innovations with short-term applicability. If this was true, we would see the affected industries rather shifting to more time-strategic, broad patenting of features for the sole purpose of delaying the development cycle for competitors.
A shift in the type of innovation toward efficiency
Clayton Christensen (2012) distinguishes three major forms of innovation: “empowering,” “sustaining,” and “efficiency” innovations. While the first and the second type create and sustain jobs, the third is describing innovations that streamline processes and tend to reduce the number of available jobs.3-4
Fast-paced industries in the sustaining category will feel a continuous pressure to increase productivity, and will incentivize to invest and operate in the efficiency innovation scheme. The 2015 industry employment and output projections to 2024 by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, for example, find that the US computer and peripheral equipment manufacturing industry is among those with the highest projected changes both in terms of increases in output and declines in employment.3-5 This is an indication that the industry is running in full efficiency innovation mode.
How can such an industry then be open to taking more risks by working on completely new approaches and potential moonshots if most resources are spent to increase efficiency to stay in business? One way could be through new partnership models with, and investment in, start-ups. If a business is running like clockwork and trimmed toward optimized outcomes, it might not be the right environment to follow out-of-the-box ideas. A positive development is that an increasing number of agile entrepreneurs with bold ideas are starting to shake up industries that are fully engaged with themselves. In addition, corporate investment arms that strategically back young companies are on the rise. A diversification of corporate culture might be essential for survival in the long run.
Contributed by Bernhard Petermeier, Technology Pioneers, World Economic Forum.
A broader measure of innovation outcomes—the Economic impacts pillar of the NRI, which comprises both patents and survey-based measures of the impact of ICTs on business model and on organizational model innovation—can give some additional insights: the 2016 iteration of the NRI sees a positive change compared to 2015 in the perceived impact of ICTs on business model innovation in almost 100 countries. Importantly, as Figure 3 demonstrates, the increased power of ICTs to enable new business models is being felt across the entire networked readiness spectrum.11 ICT-driven business model innovation thus is a candidate to be watched as an important source of digital innovation impact.
2. The increasing urgency to adopt and innovate continuously: Although innovation is clearly on executives’ minds, seven countries truly stand out in terms of their digital innovation performance. A closer look at their characteristics reveals very high rates of business ICT adoption and a top innovation environment.
Although perceived capacity to innovate is going up across the world, certain countries are far ahead of the rest in terms of innovation impact as captured by the NRI (Figure 4): when looking at the score distribution for the Economic impacts pillar of the NRI, seven countries stand out in terms of their performance: Finland, Switzerland, Sweden, Israel, Singapore, the Netherlands, and the United States. A closer examination of these top seven innovative countries gives important clues about potential drivers for innovation success in the digital era.
In order to establish how the top seven are different from other countries, Figure 5 shows the distribution of ranks for these countries across all other individual pillars of the NRI. The data reveal some striking patterns: top innovation impact performers are all characterized by top ranks in business usage of digital technologies. More particularly, this means these countries perform especially well on the combination of firm technology absorption, innovation capacity, patenting, and business-to-business (B2B) and business-to-consumer (B2C) Internet use as well as ICT staff training. In addition to having very high levels of business ICT use, the top seven all rank highly in terms of their business and innovation environment as well as in individual technology usage.
At the country level, high levels of business adoption of digital technologies and a strong business and innovation environment thus stand out as a key characteristic of highly innovative countries. To the extent that digitization allows for faster processes, this finding resonates with both survey-based and anecdotal evidence at the firm level, which shows that speed in bringing new inventions to market is the most crucial factor in becoming and staying a top innovative firm in the Digital Age.12Because digital technologies are driving winner-take-all dynamics for an increasing number of industries, getting there first matters.
Note that a crucial ingredient for innovation success will continue to be talent competitiveness. Although the NRI contains a broad measure of skills, it currently does not map the availability of the very specialized talent needed to drive digital innovation.13Yet this type of talent will be at the core of any success story in the unfolding Fourth Industrial Revolution: it will limit or enhance the ability of individual countries to fuel their development, growth, and employment strategies through digital innovation. When it comes to succeeding at innovation, countries critically need to think not only about educating future innovators but also about how to retain talent once educated, as the pull of Silicon Valley remains strong.14
3. Missed opportunities: In recent years, digital innovation has been primarily driven by consumer demand. Yet this increasing demand for digital products and services by a global consumer base is being met by a relatively small number of companies. Businesses need to act now and adopt digital technologies to capture their part of this growing market. A widening and worrying gap is also emerging between growth in individual ICT usage and public-sector engagement in the digital economy, as government usage is increasingly falling short of expectations. Governments can do more to invest in innovative digital solutions to drive social impact.
The NRI data suggest that business usage and adoption is stagnating or moving only slowly across regions (Figure 6). This suggests that a large number of existing firms are not getting in the game fast enough. The data also imply that it is not a lack of technology take-up by individuals that is holding back business adoption: companies that do adopt digital technologies will find themselves with a fast-growing connected consumer base. As Figure 6 shows, this trend of rising individual adoption is remarkably uniform across all regions of the world. The number of Internet users grew in all but nine countries since the 2015 iteration of the Index. Household ownership of personal computers and the number of households with an Internet connection is also increasing in all but a handful of countries. In particular, the quality of Internet service is improving, with fixed and mobile broadband subscriptions increasing across the board.
Furthermore, an expectations gap has opened up with respect to public-sector performance in using and promoting digital technologies. The upward trend in government usage (NRI pillar 8) observed up to 2013 is slowly being reversed in all regions of the world (Figure 6). Governments are also seen to be falling behind in terms of using digital technologies efficiently for social impact (NRI indicator 10.03, Figure 7). Using ICTs to more efficiently provide services to citizens is an important area where digital technologies can make a difference in generating broad-based gains.
Yet it does not have to be the government alone that is driving social outcomes. Indeed, overall social impact scores (NRI pillar 10) are up in a group of countries, in particular the advanced economies (Figure 8). ICTs can be used in many innovative ways to achieve social impact—for example, in facilitating access to basic services such as healthcare, finance, and insurance (Figure 9). Even in cases where the government remains firmly in charge of the system, access to the system can be facilitated by digital technologies and private initiative. A pioneering example of such a public-private digital collaboration for social impact is a Dutch service provider that has partnered with the government to facilitate access to the justice system (Box 4).
Box 4: Public-private collaboration in digital social innovation: Rechtwijzer, the Dutch digital platform for dispute resolution
Rechtwijzer 2.0 is a collaborative effort between HiiL Innovating Justice, the Dutch Legal Aid Board, Modria, and the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security. The online-based dispute resolution (ODR) platform aims to inform people about their legal options as well as to support legal professionals so they can intervene more effectively. The initiative allows citizens to find sustainable solutions to their legal issues, such as divorce, separation, landlord-tenant disputes, and employment disputes. The ODR platform empowers citizens to access justice by providing simple models that have worked for others as well as tailored support by legal professionals. The platform is a major innovation that helps citizens get access to justice and could offer a sustainable solution to many judicial systems.
Rechtwijzer 2.0 is a great example of a wider movement and need: justice innovation. Justice innovation is a form of social innovation that is key to reforming judicial systems. It uses market-based approaches that benefit society. It will help close the gap on the estimated 4 billion people who do not have adequate access to justice. Social innovation is described by the Global Agenda Council on Social Innovation as “the application of innovative, practical, sustainable, market-based approaches to benefit society in general, and low-income or underserved populations in particular.”4-1 This approach is more collaborative and will empower low-income people to participate in the global economy with dignity.
Contributed by Lisa Ventura, Society and Innovation, World Economic Forum.
4. Building a resilient digital economy: As the new digital economy is taking shape, offering it the right framework conditions will be crucial to ensuring its sustainability. Digital technologies are unleashing new economic and social dynamics that will need to be managed if the digital transformation of industries and societies are to deliver long-term and broad-based gains. A resilient digital economy also calls for new types of leadership, governance, and behaviors. A critical ingredient for the success and sustainability of the emerging system will be agile governance frameworks that allow societies to anticipate and shape the impact of emerging technologies and react quickly to changing circumstances.
From an economic standpoint, two developments that come in the wake of the unfolding digital revolution carry direct implications for future competitiveness and inclusive growth and will require a careful policy response: the impact of digital technologies and new networks on (1) competition dynamics in product markets and (2) labor market dynamics.
As network dynamics are becoming a key feature of competition in the emerging platform economy, being able to bring products to market fast and scale rapidly is increasingly important for companies. At the same time, the risk of lock-in needs to be managed. Governments can play a supportive role in creating a level playing field by ensuring a business environment that allows firms to quickly react to new developments; this includes speedy procedures for opening a new business and bringing products to market, providing a supportive innovation ecosystem, ensuring that barriers to entry stay low by enforcing a competition regime that counteracts potential network lock-in, and promoting and facilitating ICT adoption by building out infrastructure and having a clear ICT strategy.
Similar to trade liberalization, the spread of digital technologies is creating winners and losers within the labor force. Two key ways in which digital technologies are affecting outcomes can be identified.
First, as digital technologies are increasingly allowing for the automation of routine jobs, they are currently accelerating the polarization of the income distribution because middle-skilled workers are most affected up to this point. In the United States, total employment grew significantly in the lower end of the skill spectrum, where wages were generally stagnating or grew slightly, and at the higher end of the spectrum, where wages grew significantly. Many middle-skilled workers have been seeing their earnings decline or their jobs evaporate.15
Economies need to face the double challenge of further upgrading the skills of workers at the upper end of the spectrum while ensuring that the rest, the majority, of the population also receive the necessary training to prosper in the digital world. The World Economic Forum Future of Jobs report examines future skills needs via a survey of Chief Human Resource Officers from 366 companies worldwide. The responses indicate that complex problem-solving skills comprise the set of skills that will be considered a core requirement by the largest share of jobs across industries (36 percent). Skills that are not considered crucial today will account for about a third of the most-needed skills by 2020. Demand for narrow technical skills such as programming or equipment operation and control will be rather stable, while demand will grow for cognitive abilities, content, process, and social skills.16Policy must play an important role in terms of supporting the transition of workers into new jobs and ensuring that workers’ skills match market demand.
In addition to automation, a second mechanism by which digital technologies are affecting the labor market is through the effects of the platform economy.17Digital platforms are used not only to match consumers with goods but also increasingly to match workers with jobs. This is leading to more freelance activity and fewer workers being employed by firms in full-time jobs with correspondingly more uncertainty over income flows and less social protection (e.g., insurance, pension). Despite these developments, continued social protection for workers needs to be ensured.
Anticipatory governance of innovation
Given the likelihood that extremely powerful and multi-use technologies will be developed, tested, and commercialized in coming years, it will be important to guide innovation and commercialization processes with the wider social, economic, and environmental context in mind. Importantly, new technologies should not be thought of as panaceas or simple tools but rather as entities that exert power over users and that will have different impacts in different social contexts. It is therefore critical to keep in mind the social reality in which emerging technologies will be used and to appreciate the economic and social dynamics they may exacerbate, such as inequality.
Ideally the governance of innovation processes would start before economic policies become a relevant instrument, anticipating some of the important societal challenges as applications are developed. Recognizing these challenges, the European Union has recently adopted guidelines on Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) that reflect these considerations.18RRI is currently applied mainly with regard to emerging technologies—notably nanotechnologies, genomics, synthetic biology, and geo-engineering. It has been defined as “a transparent, interactive process by which societal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view to the (ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process and its marketable products in order to allow a proper embedding of scientific and technological advances in our society.”19
In terms of evaluating the social desirability of research undertakings, several sets of principles have been suggested: (1) orienting research so as to address major existing or emerging global risks—tightening supplies of energy, water, and food; pandemics; aging societies; global warming; public health and security;20 (2) constitutional values21—for example, in the case of the European Union, “respect for human dignity, liberty, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. […] Moreover […] pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men”;22and (3) general principles of human and labor rights as enshrined in the UN Global Compact’s 10 principles.23
One key challenge to more appropriate forms of innovation governance is the fact that technologies change far faster than regulatory regimes do. As the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on the Future of Software and Society has pointed out, technology has so fundamentally changed many behaviors and processes being governed that current regulations are not fully relevant (see A Call for Agile Governance Principles). In an attempt to close this “agility gap,” the Council took inspiration from agile approaches used in software development to create four “agile governance” principles. The work proposes that policymakers could create governance systems that are more robust, adaptable, and responsive to changing technologies if their decision-making frameworks valued outcomes over rules; if they valued responding to change over following a plan; participation over control; and self-organization over centralization. In addition to suggesting these new heuristics, the Council looks at specific areas where new policy options need to be generated in order to ensure that emerging technologies deliver inclusive benefits to society, including the “gig economy,” the use of decentralized payment systems, peer-to-peer transactions, and autonomous devices.
Building on this work, as well as work by the Global Agenda Council on Justice and others, in July 2016 the World Economic Forum launched a new set of Global Future Councils that includes a number of councils specifically focused on the governance of emerging technologies and the potential for new forms of agile governance to guide innovation and the Fourth Industrial Revolution toward positive outcomes for society.